Podcasts about packingham

Suprema Corte retrasa leyes de redes sociales en Florida y TexasLa Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos ha puesto en suspenso dos leyes estatales de Florida y Texas que buscaban regular las plataformas de redes sociales. En una decisión unánime, los jueces devolvieron los casos a los tribunales inferiores para un análisis más detallado. Ambas leyes pretendían limitar cómo las empresas de redes sociales pueden moderar contenido, alegando que estas plataformas censuran las voces conservadoras. La Corte indicó que los argumentos sobre la censura gubernamental y la Primera Enmienda requieren un mayor escrutinio.El fallo señala la protección de la Primera EnmiendaEl lunes, la Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos decidió detener la implementación de dos controvertidas leyes de redes sociales en Florida y Texas. Ambas leyes, impulsadas por legisladores republicanos, tenían como objetivo limitar el poder de las plataformas de redes sociales para moderar contenido. Los tribunales inferiores deberán ahora reexaminar los casos, lo que significa que las leyes no entrarán en vigor de inmediato. La decisión fue unánime, pero se emitieron cinco opiniones separadas, subrayando la complejidad del tema.Las leyes de Florida y Texas se originaron tras la suspensión del expresidente Donald Trump de varias plataformas de redes sociales después del asalto al Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021. Los legisladores de ambos estados afirmaron que las empresas de tecnología censuran las voces conservadoras. Sin embargo, estas leyes generaron controversia porque permiten a los usuarios demandar a las plataformas por presunta censura, en conflicto directo con la Sección 230 de la Ley de Decencia en las Comunicaciones, que protege a las empresas tecnológicas de ser responsables por el contenido publicado por los usuarios. Además, los críticos argumentan que estas leyes violan la Primera Enmienda al obligar a las plataformas a mantener contenido que consideran inadecuado.La Suprema Corte no tomó una decisión definitiva sobre la constitucionalidad de las leyes, pero su fallo reafirma la importancia de la Primera Enmienda en la era digital. Este caso recuerda otros fallos importantes donde la Corte ha defendido los derechos de expresión en medios digitales. Por ejemplo, en 2017, en Packingham v. North Carolina, la Corte protegió el derecho de acceso a redes sociales para los condenados por delitos sexuales. Asimismo, en Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), se protegieron los derechos de libre expresión en internet contra regulaciones excesivas. Estos precedentes subrayan la tendencia de la Corte a defender la libre expresión en plataformas digitales frente a la intervención gubernamental.

It started as a fun project with his kids: creating the “best hot cocoa in the world.” After countless tries, Dean Packingham thought he had succeeded, and everyone who tried his instant cocoa mix agreed. Named for his kids, Mike & Jen's Hot Cocoa debuted at specialty shops in their hometown of Duluth. Today, it's sold in more than 1,300 stores nationwide including Costco, Target, and Meijer. Packingham has grown his home project to a regional brand with just one partner and no outside investors. “It's a little bit of a sleeper category, hot cocoa—there wasn't much in the premium part of the category to compete with,” Packingham says. It may have started as a hobby, but Packingham went all in: selling his house, living in a trailer, leaving a 27-year career in meteorology, and even buying a fitness franchise to fund the hot cocoa business. He talks about scaling, from finding a co-packer to planning for a seasonal product to being disciplined about not adding other products too quickly. Mike & Jen's has already attracted some interest from larger companies, but Packingham says he's in no rush to be acquired. “As long as we're having fun, we're happy to keep doing this.” Following our conversation with Packingham, we go back to the classroom with Jay Ebben, an entrepreneurship professor at the University of St. Thomas Schulze School of Entrepreneurship. Ebben talks about the challenges of scaling a consumer products goods business without raising money. “It forces you to figure out what the selling equation is and how to get it done,” Ebben says. “Raising money… might take away some of the financial stress, but at the same time, right now, they've got the freedom to grow as they like, operate as they like, and not feel some of the pressure that comes along with having investors on board.”

Over the next two episodes, I'll be reading two past opinions that will help us better understand two cases currently before the Court.  The past opinions are Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) and Packingham v. North Carolina (2017). The two cases currently before the Court are Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier; these two similar cases were granted cert on the same day and their oral arguments were both given on the same day - October 31, 2023. Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.  Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.

Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.

Ever dream of taking your childhood dream into a huge enterprise? Shark Bite Biz's David Strausser chats with one super enthusiastic father that took his kid's love of hot coca and turned it into an empire. Dean Packingham of Mike & Jen's Hot Cocoa tells us how he did it. Check out Mike & Jen's Hot Cocoa here: https://mikeandjens.com/ or buy it directly on Amazon here: https://amzn.to/3oFjy1y Check out our sponsor, SAP Platinum Partner SEIDOR here: ⁠https://www.seidor.com⁠ Watch us on YouTube: ⁠https://youtube.com/c/SharkBiteBiz⁠ Visit our NEW Merch store: ⁠https://store.sharkbitebiz.com⁠  Connect with David Strausser on LinkedIn: ⁠http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidStrausser⁠ Join our Reddit Community: ⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/SharkBiteBiz/⁠ Donate to our Patreon to SUPPORT this channel and get some BENEFITS and PERKS: ⁠http://patreon.com/sharkbitebiz⁠ Subscribe to the audio podcast on: ⁠http://www.SharkBiteBiz.com⁠ Find out more about the host, David Strausser: ⁠http://www.davidstrausser.com⁠ Follow David Strausser on Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/dstrausser83/⁠ Follow us on Facebook: ⁠http://www.facebook.com/SharkBiteBiz⁠ Follow us on Twitter: ⁠http://www.twitter.com/SharkBiteBiz⁠ Follow David Strausser on Twitter: ⁠https://www.twitter.com/dstrausser83⁠ Listen on Apple iTunes: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/shark-bite-biz/id1522304651⁠ Listen on Google Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2hhcmtiaXRlYml6LmNvbS9mZWVkLnhtbA⁠ Listen on Spotify: ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/1CZh0QdNr5Nn8CD8kInMAJ⁠ Listen on Listen Notes: ⁠https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/shark-bite-biz-business-growth-podcast-AMt-rRP2DXl/⁠ Listen on Stitcher: ⁠https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/shark-bite-biz⁠ Listen on iHeartRADIO: ⁠https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-shark-bite-biz-68819872/⁠ Produced by: Francisco Strausser: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC82qlvfm4mXg3C3AzqPHthw --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/shark-bite-biz/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/shark-bite-biz/support

Dean Packingham is the founder and CEO of Mike & Jen's Hot Cocoa. I was inspired by his story of creating a product in his own kitchen to better his children. To go a step further, he is also a success story of someone who had a successful, unfulfilling career and decided to take a leap of faith to pursue something he was passionate about

This is Convo By Design with a look at small spaces and maximum style because it's time to start looking at exploring space again. That's right, we are going to look forward at making small spaces popular again. Maybe it was the nook under the stairs that has been a classroom for the past 2 years, or that breakfast area/ yoga studio/ office. How can we make those spaces functional again, as in the original function that didn't include three slashes and four functions. Let's get back to singularly stunning design in the multi purpose spaces with a listen to a conversation from 2021, via Zoom, of course and another exploration into small space, big style in the latest installment of the Wellness & Design Thought Leadership Series presented by ThermaSol. Designer Resources ThermaSol - Redefining the modern shower experience Article, great style is easy. It's the best way to buy beautiful modern furniture York Wallcoverings - Designed to inspire for over 125 years Franz Viegener - Finely crafted sculptural faucets Moya Living -  Beautiful, durable powder coated kitchen, bath & outdoor kitchen cabinetry A little history first. In 2012, I produced my first design house. A 1400 foot penthouse condo in the heart of Hollywood. 8 designers and some incredible design. I have always had a fondness for small spaces because big spaces and big budgets are great but it is, I would argue as a not-designer, a more simple endeavor. Not “easy” but far more simple. Small spaces take more work, research, planning and attention to detail. Again, I am not a designer, but I have had enough time in conversation with world-class design talent to know a few things, and this idea is one. So I gathered a group of uber talented creatives to chat with me about this as part of the Wellness & Design Thought Leadership Series, presented by ThermaSol. Here is how I described the conversation to them: Design tastes chan change over time. Color palette, new materials and lifestyle trends all affect the finished project. What never changes are the limitations placed on creatives by the space available in which to work. Designing in a smaller footprint presents creatives with unique challenges and often forces certain choices and at the same time offers designers an opportunity to test their mettle. This challenge can change the way we think about design, encourage experimentation and open up new possibilities. The panelists include; Designer, Elizabeth Drake, architect  Anthony Laney and designer Roxanne Packham. We are talking about space and making that space enjoyable once more. We'll get to that, right after this. Thank you, Roxanne, Elizabeth and Anthony. You are all fantastic and I appreciate you so much. For more stories like this, make sure you are subscribing to the podcast. You can find the show everywhere you get your favorite podcasts… But, you already knew that. What you might not know, is that there are literally hundreds of other episodes for you to binge on now. Go check them out.  Thank you ThermaSol, Article, York Wallcoverings, Franz Viegener and Moya Living for your partnership and support. You are remarkable partners and amazing allies for the trade. And, thank you for listening, remember why you do what you do and that the business of design is about making better the lives of those we serve. Until next week. Be well and take today first.

With Russia potentially invading Ukraine any day now, Andrew and Jerry sit down with Tony Shaffer from the London Center for a deep-dive into why this is happening now.  Are the seeds in this from 2021, 2012, 1991 or earlier?  Plus, Youtube didn't like the last Episode of AJSTW, so they canceled it.  What does this auger for free speech in general, and if the Supreme Court has ruled that social media platforms are the modern public square, what purpose is served if these social media companies can play favorites with perspective?  The CDC offers what appears to be conflicting guidance regarding masks, and one wonders whether newly-inaugurated Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's first-day executive orders have anything to do with it. Plus, Andrew offers a short review of Marvel's "The Eternals".

We’re going to have a fantastic discussion with some audio clips that were submitted. A letter from a prisoner who wants to talk about Packingham. Our main feature will be a talk about the sentencing process as it applies in Minnesota. https://narsol.org/2021/05/building-your-advocacy-tool-kit/ [6:58] Patreon Jeff is asking about law enforcement justifying their own existence in...

Dr. Jill Goldenziel talks about how she teaches law and leadership to Marines, how the U.S. needs to think differently about online free speech, and how China and America use law as an operational tool This episode references: The New Fighting Words?: How U.S. Law Hampers the Fight Against Information Warfare https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol22/iss1/3/ Packingham v. North Carolina 582 US _ (2017) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 S. 4534: A bill to amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the scope of protection from civil liability for “good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s4534 Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and Global Escalation of Lawfare https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3525442 The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/ Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf What's on Your CV of Purpose? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-your-cv-purpose-jill-goldenziel Dr. Jill Goldenziel is a Professor at Marine Corps University-Command and Staff College https://jillgoldenziel.com/

***NOTE: The document reviewed in this video is a draft of the executive order issued by the President on these topics. Additional commentary related to the final version is pinned as the first comment to this video, and our formal follow-up video can be found at https://youtu.be/gmBGFVUjCaI*** When Twitter decided to add a "fact check" to one of President Trump's latest tweets (on the possibility of mail-in voting fraud), it opened up a huge debate that ended in the President promising to draft and enforce an executive order (EO) to "regulate" social media entities and the Internet. Now we have that executive order (in draft form). What does the order purport to do? How does it get CDA 230 CDA wrong, and what impact will that have? How does it involve the FTC and the States Attorneys General? And what does it mean for the future of the Internet? We dive into the fanciful, sci-fi world of Captain EO...in Virtual Legality. *** CHAPTERS: 0:00 Introduction 2:34 The President Gets Fact Checked 9:30 Hoeg's Anticipated EO Approach 13:38 The Executive Order (Draft) 14:12 "Section 1. Policy" 19:48 "Section 2. Arbitrary Restrictions" (CDA Section 230) 31:40 "Section 3. Prohibitions on Spending" 32:55 "Sections 4 and 5. False Advertising and the FTC" 41:00 Conclusion CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/tTThb2Y9Fh8 #President #EO #CDA230 *** Discussed in this episode: "Here’s Trump’s Executive Order." Tweet - May 28, 2020 - Jacob Ward (@byjacobward) https://twitter.com/byjacobward/status/1265864271138828289 "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent." Tweet - May 26, 2020 - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392 "Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud" Twitter Events Link https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 "Civic integrity policy" Twitter Help Center https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy "Trump preparing order targeting social media protections" Associated Press - May 28, 2020 https://apnews.com/fc30f9ebdff9d3d33a870e7374f8ffa6 "So, since a number of people have asked me, let's go through the thought experiment together." Tweet - May 27, 2020 - Richard Hoeg ( @Hoeg Law ) https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1265831119020228610 "Preventing Online Censorship" Draft Executive Order https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material" 47 USC 230 (CDA 230) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 "PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA" SCOTUS - Decided June 19, 2017 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf "Supreme Court last chance for Trump to block Twitter critics" Associated Press - March 23, 2020 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-twitter-us-supreme-court-20200323-pdk2pxg3yfht5bwjdwlu7nepfm-story.html "Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission" 15 USC 45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 "Defending and respecting the rights of people using our service" Twitter Help Center https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/defending-and-respecting-our-users-voice *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

The black letter law and articles on this topic are: Panel IX – Social Media: 2020 at the 28th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference https://bcove.video/2DJ50Vj LikeWar by Peter Singer https://www.amazon.com/LikeWar-Weaponization-P-W-Singer/dp/1328695743 Trump-Russia Investigations: A Guide by Rachel Levinson-Waldman https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Trump-Russia%20Investigations_0.pdf The Islamophobic Administration by Rachel Levinson-Waldman https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/BCJ_Islamophobic_Administration.pdf Report on foreign influence in the 2016 election to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “The Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency” https://www.newknowledge.com/disinforeport Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 Manhattan Community Access Corp v Halleck (2019) including the amici curiae briefs https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/ Peter Singer is Strategist and Senior Fellow at New America https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/peter-warren-singer/ Rachel Levinson-Waldman is Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program https://www.brennancenter.org/expert/rachel-levinson-waldman

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Packingham v. North Carolina. Lester Packingham was convicted in 2002 of taking “indecent liberties” with a minor in violation of North Carolina law, and sentenced to prison time followed by supervised release. In 2010, he was arrested after authorities came across a post on his Facebook profile--which he had set up using an alias--in which he thanked God for having a parking ticket dismissed. Packingham was charged with, and convicted of, violating a North Carolina law that restricted the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social networking” websites. -- Packingham challenged his conviction on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the North Carolina statute unlawfully restricted his freedom of speech and association, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina ultimately rejected his claim. The website access restriction, the Court concluded, was a content-neutral, conduct-based regulation that only incidentally burdened Packingham’s speech, was narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest, and left open ample alternative channels of communication. -- By a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the North Carolina statute, which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages,” impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Ilya Shapiro, who is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law at the Cato Institute.

The Court has ruled today in two important cases, Matal v. Tam (aka "The Slants" copyright case) and Packingham v. North Carolina, which concerns a North Carolina law that restricts the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social networking” websites. Mr. Michael Huston and Mr. Ilya Shapiro joined us for this special Teleforum in which the holdings and reasoning of both cases were discussed. -- Featuring:Mr. Michael R. Huston, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

This week's case covers how First Amendment Free Speech protections have adapted to internet communication (Packingham v. North Carolina) and evolving views on racism and hate speech (Lee v Tam), through two cases that are just as much about about Constitutional tests as they are about Alito and Kennedy telling each other to shut up.  Law starts at (04:12).

(Bloomberg) -- Stuart Benjamin, a professor at Duke University Law School, discusses a decision in the Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina, which ruled that the state's ban on sex offenders using social media platforms violated the first amendment of the constitution. He speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Stuart Benjamin, a professor at Duke University Law School, discusses a decision in the Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina, which ruled that the state's ban on sex offenders using social media platforms violated the first amendment of the constitution. He speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Where are the new frontiers in First Amendment law? Where do scholars and the courts see the potential for expanding First Amendment protections in the future? What technological developments pose challenges to existing First Amendment protections? Our guest on today’s episode of So to Speak will help us answer those questions. Professor Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA and the founder of the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Before receiving his law degree and clerking for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, he graduated from UCLA at age 15 with a degree in math-computer science and worked as a computer programmer for 12 years. Professor Volokh is widely regarded as a foremost scholar on the First Amendment and his textbook, “The First Amendment and Related Statutes,” is used in law schools across the country. On today’s show, we explore topics relating to virtual reality and augmented reality, occupational speech and the case of Mats Järlström, prediction markets, and Packingham v. North Carolina, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with registered sex offenders’ access to social media. Also in this show: Professor Volokh shares what First Amendment issue he is particularly interested in at the moment. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast  Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

NACDL Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez recently had the opportunity to speak with attorneys Jonathan Hacker and Deanna Rice from the Washington, D.C. office of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Jon and Deanna, together with their Associate Kimya Saied, co-authored NACDL's amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina. The case concerns the proliferation of collateral consequences that deprive convicted persons of fundamental rights without a sound basis in law. At issue in this case is a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for a person on North Carolina's registry of former sex offenders to use a social media platform if the site is known to allow minors to have an account. Mr. Packingham was convicted of posting “God is good” on Facebook in celebration of the dismissal of a traffic ticket. Learn more about NACDL. Ivan J. Dominguez, host; Ezra Dunkle-Polier and Alexandra Funk, production assistants. Music West Bank (Lezet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and Walkabout (Digital Primitives) / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Running time: 21m44s.

On February 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina. Lester Packingham was convicted in 2002 of taking “indecent liberties” with a minor in violation of North Carolina law, and sentenced to prison time followed by supervised release. In 2010, he was arrested after authorities came across a post on his Facebook profile--which he had set up using an alias--in which he thanked God for having a parking ticket dismissed. Packingham was charged with, and convicted of, violating a North Carolina law that restricted the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social networking” websites. -- Packingham challenged his conviction on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the North Carolina statute unlawfully restricted his freedom of speech and association, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina ultimately rejected his claim. The website access restriction, the Court concluded, was a content-neutral, conduct-based regulation that only incidentally burdened Packingham’s speech, was narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest, and left open ample alternative channels of communication. -- The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether, under the Court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to “access” a website that enables communication, expression, and the exchange of information among users--if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts--is permissible on its face and as applied to Packingham. -- To discuss the case, we have Ilya Shapiro, who is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

Lester Packingham Jr. registered as a sex offender in 2002 after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl when he was 21. But that offense isn't what brought Packingham to the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday. The crime this time around? A Facebook post. The post itself was benign enough. In 2010, Packingham took to Facebook to celebrate a recently dismissed parking ticket. “Praise be to GOD, WOW!” he wrote.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment bars a state from banning citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to "access" a wide array of websites--including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com--that enable communications among users if the site is known to allow minors to have accounts. The statute does not require the state to prove the defendant has actually had contact with a minor, intended to do so, or accessed a website for any illicit or improper purpose. ?Lester Packingham was convicted of violating the law for a Facebook post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring "God is Good!" Packingham and his supporters contend that law amounts to a sweeping, overbroad, and vague ban on protected speech untailored to any legitimate interest and unjustified by any compelling need. -- Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Packingham v. North Carolina | 02/27/17 | Docket #: 15-1194

(Bloomberg) -- Corrects guest name u0010u0010Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Melissa Arbus Sherry, deputy managing partner of Latham & Watkins' Washington D.C. office, discuss the Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina, which will decide whether or not register sex offenders can be prevented from using social media. They speak with June Grasso, Greg Stohr, and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Corrects guest name u0010u0010Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Melissa Arbus Sherry, deputy managing partner of Latham & Watkins’ Washington D.C. office, discuss the Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina, which will decide whether or not register sex offenders can be prevented from using social media. They speak with June Grasso, Greg Stohr, and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio’s "Bloomberg Law."

On February 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina. This First Amendment case deals with whether a state may bar citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state law makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to "access" a wide array of popular websites that enable communications among users if the site is known to allow minors to have accounts. The statute does not require the state to prove the defendant has actually had contact with a minor, intended to do so, or accessed a website for any illicit or improper purpose. In the trial court, the Defendant was convicted of violating the law for a Facebook post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring "God is Good!" Some contend that the law amounts to a sweeping, overbroad, and vague ban on protected speech untailored to any legitimate interest and is unjustified by any compelling need. -- Jonathan Sherman, Partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and Melissa Arbus Sherry, Partner at Latham & Watkins will provide a preview of this interesting case. -- Featuring: Jonathan Sherman, Partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and Melissa Arbus Sherry, Latham & Watkins.

What are the constitutional issues raised when a government can put someone, even a registered sex offender, behind bars simply for making use of social media? David Post comments on the Packingham case that goes before the Supreme Court next year. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There is a lot to unpack with the case of Packingham v. North Carolina, a First Amendment case that asks whether or not the government can criminalize a sex offender's use of social media and other popular websites.  This week, Brett and Nazim discuss how this plays into general Free Speech Law, Due Process considerations, and ex post facto precedent.  This week stays pretty on topic, so the law generally starts at (02:45).